taz71 wrote:One thing Bylsma did well and he is not getting credit for is benching Fleury in favor of Voukon. This was a gutsy coaching decision

You're right there, and it did surprise me a lot that he made the move and stuck with Vokoun. Problem is no changes were made and he could have the same issue next year.

Roster decisions are on the GM. MAF is the better goalie in the regular season. Voukie could prove that wrong next year.

Hopefully that is correct and he doesn't get a playoff hangover in the regular season. I think Scuderi will help him over his issues (whatever they are). Maybe the new goalie coach will fix him up. It will be interesting to see how the playoff stuff will affect him this season. His first few games may tell a lot.

One can only hope. You can only give Fleury so many chances. Goaltenders do seem to typically mature at a late age. I would love to see Fleury's potential reached. Darn skippy he better take a discount if he wins another cup on this team

Beveridge wrote:I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.

This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.

Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.

Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.

Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series.. Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.

It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.

So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.

When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.

Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.

Beveridge wrote:I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.

This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.

Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.

Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.

Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series.. Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.

It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.

So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.

When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.

Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.

Froggy wrote:i don't get it... we were good enough all season and through 2 rounds of the playoffs to win in spite of bylsma, but the main reason we lost to boston was because of him?

Bylsma hockey is always good enough in the regular season. To be honest with crosby and Malkin at this point in careers it would be damn hard to lose enough in the regular season to be out of the playoffs.

2 rounds? Ok. If the Isle have just two ounces better goal tending they win that series. The Senators were just out classed with talent in that series. Out classed and overwhelmed.

Lastly, please follow this statement....Bylsma isn't the reason we lost to Boston....but he is the reason we were ousted in such easy fashion. 0-15 on the PP and moreover what great chances were on those PP's? Far and few between did the Pens generate any good chances in any parts of the games. You have to get some decent chances because at some point the law of averages kick in. We had next to nothing of prime chances. This is where it falls in the coaches lap. He needs to make adjustments to enable HIS PLAYERS, HIS TEAM, to have the best possible situation to generate scoring. That is exactly the point. The Bruins schemed, the Pens kept skating forward, turnover, rinse, repeat. Four games of identical running into the brick wall. At the same speed, at the same pace, from the same distance. Over and over and over.

The whole world is still waiting for them to get to their game, but someone needs to tell them the season ended.

I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.

Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the islesseries.

DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.

Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the islesseries.

Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.

DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.

Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the islesseries.

Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.

I am 100% in this camp. Shero messed with a really good thing. He didn't even know his own freaking team. He gives Dan a bunch of guys days away from a nursing home for a system that is very uptempo. I think it threw everything off. I was unhappy with the additions back when they happened and frustrated with Dan trying to make them work in his system. That said, I still hold Dan responsible for not sending people to the net.

All of that nonsense is complete revisionist history. We made the trade to improve our team as much as it was to keep him off of the Bruins. Imagine him on the other side in that series instead of Jagr. They would have won in 3 games.

Re: Fleury--the first few games of the season will tell us nothing. Did it last season? He will be (and should be) a question mark until the playoffs start.

DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.

Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the islesseries.

Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.

Interesting Delpen. Apparently you suck at being a GM too, only seem to know so much after it happens.

DelPen wrote:Morrow can probably play the Kunitz role for this line now with Malkin. Just needed someone better than Cooke and Morrow might be perfect.

So Kunitz, Crosby, Iginla. Wow.

And Dupuis with Cooke and Sutter. Still awesome.

DelPen wrote:It still hasn't quite sunk in that we got him. Frankly, scratching him just so the Bruins don't have him might be enough

Beveridge wrote:I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.

This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.

Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.

Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.

Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series.. Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.

It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.

So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.

When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.

Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.

Beveridge wrote:I've just accepted that no matter who the coach was here, he would be blamed if this team didn't win the cup. Therefore, it's not even worth my time to discuss it anymore.

This is 100 miles from reality and the truth and more of a statement yet again to defend Bylsma.

Let's say that after making the same attempt over and over to run through the same brick wall, at the same speed and from the same distance, yet you can never get through that wall...........but you keep hitting it at the same speed and same distance.....what you have is the Pittsburgh Penguins in a playoff series coached by Dan Bylsma.

Now lets say that my way or highway coach has the light bulb go off and tries going around the wall...over the wall..under the wall...and once in a while coming back to running through the wall...now you have a coach willing to change, modify, throw anything at the wall because eventually something will work.

Lets forget the Tampa series and give the benefit of the doubt although we were up 3-1 in that series.. Every failed series since the cup has been lost with the Penguins doing the same thing....over and over and over and over and over. Any change? Nonsense. Change is for sissies. Any adjustments outside of scratching/dressing Bennett and Kennedy? Nonsense! Adjustments are for the weak.

It sucks that the coach of the greatest talent in the NHL biggest adjustments and tweaks are a tiny modification to a break out pass and scratching/dressing player x.

So you are wrong on this because I can assure you that if we had a coach who has lost in every playoff since a cup, yet did the best job possible to lead the Pens to victory...put the Pens in the best possible scenario to succeed...brought chess pieces to the chess match...instead of bringing checkers...there would be a tad different mindset flowing through Pens nation.

When October hits we will watch refreshed all over again and spring will bring new hope as the Bruins defeat will seem like ages ago....but I'm afraid after the repeated drubbings the writing is on the wall before it even gets here.

Bylsma has shown to this point if a series is to be decided from behind the bench, we will never come out on top.

Tl;dr version; It's not that they lose, it's HOW they lose that's frustrating.

DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.

Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the islesseries.

Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.

Interesting Delpen. Apparently you suck at being a GM too, only seem to know so much after it happens.

DelPen wrote:Morrow can probably play the Kunitz role for this line now with Malkin. Just needed someone better than Cooke and Morrow might be perfect.

So Kunitz, Crosby, Iginla. Wow.

And Dupuis with Cooke and Sutter. Still awesome.

DelPen wrote:It still hasn't quite sunk in that we got him. Frankly, scratching him just so the Bruins don't have him might be enough

There is no conflict with anything I said. Everyone was happy with the trade at the time. But it was a bad move.

DelPen wrote:I've come around to blame Shero for the Boston failure. Bylsma had the team playing perfect hockey for most of the season and all we really needed as Murray and maybe Morrow. Should have called it a day. But then he gets Iginla and destroys the lineup.

Not sure where Bylsma should put him over Neal or Dupuis and he's not a 3rd line player. That trade sunk the chance at a cup.

Maybe you are not even a bit serious here... otherwise you put it all on Brooks Orpik.Iginla never got the chance with Sid. And Sid; well he lost the hart, weight, and teeth.

Luck is fickle and fleeting. Brooks with the same shot , maybe his only , gets the pens out of the islesseries.

Get past the idea that Iginla deserved a chance to have Sid carry him. There was no need for that trade, it took Bennett off the 2nd line and shifted everyone else out of position down the lineup to shoe horn in a guy who just didn't fit on this team.

Interesting Delpen. Apparently you suck at being a GM too, only seem to know so much after it happens.

DelPen wrote:Morrow can probably play the Kunitz role for this line now with Malkin. Just needed someone better than Cooke and Morrow might be perfect.

So Kunitz, Crosby, Iginla. Wow.

And Dupuis with Cooke and Sutter. Still awesome.

DelPen wrote:It still hasn't quite sunk in that we got him. Frankly, scratching him just so the Bruins don't have him might be enough

There is no conflict with anything I said. Everyone was happy with the trade at the time. But it was a bad move.

Again, people would have lost his mind if they DIDN'T take that trade, how can you blame him. There's a difference between saying yeah it didnt work out and blaming him.